Amazon.com Widgets
  • Despite most religious views

    Evolution has been proven in many ways. Although it may still be considered a "Theory" It is still proven and there will be a significant amount of proof in the up coming years. For example, why were males an average of 5'5" 400 years ago but today are an average of 5'11"? This only points to one thing. Humans, as well as all other living creatures, adapt to there surroundings and better themselves for the new climates or whatever they may face. If evolution did not exist then all living species would have died out long ago.

  • Yes

    There is plenty of evidence to support evolution. I believe in intelligent design. The fossil records and all the scientist that stepped in after Darwin and continued the work. The earth is billions of years old and we evolved....I think evolution is God's form of creation as is everything

  • What person in their right mind would say no to this question?

    Yes it's as clear as day everywhere you look you see a result of evolution. Just like lizards at the Galapagos islands have developed the skin variations to hide from predators, and the hundreds of species that are evolving before our eyes are living proof of the existence of EVOLUTION!

  • Good Enough For Me!

    There are several findings that corroborate the theory of evolution not only in humans, but in biological life on the whole. It is extremely convincing when we take a look at fossilization, with techniques giving us the ability to date back several millions of years. Although it may be nearly impossible to get that final "1%" of full proof, I believe there is plenty of evidence that suggests evolution is how humans are what they are now (and dogs, birds, cats, etc).

  • To a degree yeah I think it has

    I think man and the universe have definitely changed a lot over the years to be sure, and science bears some of that out. Doesn't mean evolution is the only link to the creation of the universe though, but to some extent I think it's been proven to exist on some level by science yes.

  • Voice of Many

    Evolution has been a scientific theory that prides itself in the idea that it is based solely on the scientific method. Observation, experimentation, and reevaluation are all key steps in this process and evolution states that it has gone through these steps time and time again. While I'm not a scientist, I can say that the only thing that gives me confidence is that fact that many reputable voices have leaned their support towards this belief.

  • Actually yes

    There have been many fossil records that prove evolution. Both by taking their geographic location, and comparing it to the change of the species, and by using radiometric dating and observing the change over time.
    Skeptics say that every time we find a fossile it just creates more gaps in evolution, because according to them only micro evolution or small mutations (which has been directly observed) exist. They try to prove this by saying that a fossile is either certainly 1 species or certainly another. The problem with this way of thinking is that when asked if fossiles are human or not, there is a point where half of the skeptics say yes and half say no. If one graphs this against the date of the fossiles it confirms macro evolution over long periods of time.

  • Yes, evolution is a scientific fact.

    The scientific evidence in support of evolution has often been described by experts as "overwhelming." In fact, I would go so far as to say that any intelligent individual who seriously and unbiasedly investigates the evidence for evolution will become thoroughly convinced. As a former young-earth creationist, I know I was.

  • It has been proven in micro organisms.

    If science has proven evolution in microbiology then it stands to reason that it exists in macro biology. It certainly can be proven in micro organisms where life happens very fast. Creationists can only dispute evolution, but cannot offer any scientific support for their ideas. The fact is that there is no other theory that can explain life better than evolution.

  • Evolution is fact, the mechanism is debatable.

    There have been countless examples of species whose fossil record indicate a definite progress from one form to another, the dolphin is one of the most telling and easily identifiable as it is a relatively recent animal in the history of the world. (http://understanddolphins.Tripod.Com/dolphinevolution.Html) This is not denying the possibility of God or anything of the sort, it is simply pointing out a quantifiable, observable fact. The dolphin was not always a sea dwelling mammal but became one over millions of years. This is simply one of thousands of species that this series of tests can be applied to, to include us. DNA mapping and genetic history, fossil records, radiation decay, simple mechanical logical process (constant stress testing yields adaptation or failure) all prove that evolution has occurred. Why this is still a "debate" is baffling to me.

  • It just hasn't

    I am a big believer in science, but it must be noted that theories have been proven to be wrong in the past and in the end that is all that evolution is, it is just a theory. People once theorized that the earth was flat and laughed at the idea that this was false, as did they theorize that the solar system revolved around the earth. The fact remains that it has not been proven and people need to stop going around saying that it is a "fact" when to say that contradicts the very scientific discipline on which it is based. It cannot be proven and therefore it is not a fact. End of story.

  • If it was...

    The fact that its still being disputed must mean that it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt. There's that famous quote by Dawkins that goes along the idea that if you believe in anything other than evolution ie intelligent design, then you are either ignorant, stupid or wicked. Now, I regard myself as a reasonably intelligent person willing to hear people's opinion. Some believe in evolution, others do not. I will listen to both sides. Now whilst there may be people who are ignorant or stupid who adhere to intelligent design there is still a vast number of people who are knowledgeable and intelligent. Some such people do not even have religious conviction. If evolution has been proven scientifically, why is there so much opposition to it?

  • Instinct is the smoking gun for design. Evolution does not explain instinct.

    Instinct is programming/ instructions, how can evolution explain an organism being able to utilize a newly mutated change without instructions. And if instructions must be included with the random mutation, that evolution uses to explain diversity, then you must believe in a level of chance beyond all comprehension - that this happened randomly. DNA is the complete instructions for cells and for the organism as well - instructions equal design. A spider is born knowing to build a web genetically. In order for evolution to be believed we have to believe that along with whatever physical changes randomly purposelessly, evolved over time, such as wings for example, that the organism also passed a set of genetic instructions on how to fly and that this some how evolved simultaneously.

    If some one gave an untrained person a perfectly working fueled up airplane could they fly it. Yet the spider is born knowing how to spin a web and knows, with no parent around to teach it to spin the web and to wait for a meal. And a chicken knows it must sit on the egg -and from the first evolved chicken that ever laid an egg it had to instinctively sit on that egg for days with a single minded obsession.
    And a butterfly who has spent its entire life as a caterpillar knows how to turn itself into a butterfly and can fly as soon as his wings are dry and it knows instinctively to knit its proboscis together- or it will be unable to eat. Knows how to mate and where to lay its eggs. All of these instructions had to follow the chain of tiny physical evolutionary changes as they happened. As each minor physical change happened the organism would have to discover on its own how to use this new piece of equipment and this would be lost to its offspring who would need to start from scratch. Unless the instructions were included. DA

  • Voices of many

    Evolution has not been scientifically proven its only a theory and besides if in fact it had been proven don't you think it would be in the media I mean seriously people from all of these posts none of you mentioned that factor, bedsides that evolution has been disproven in many other ways like this for example the moon is slowly moving away from us so if the world is billions of years old then the moon would have reversed the cycle therefore it would so close that we would be drowned twice a day.

    Posted by: CMAC
  • No, not really.

    The evolution theory, as it says on the label, is still a 'theory'. Yes, there have been numerous pieces that are generally considered 'evidence', but there is no scientific conclusion. People (and a lot of scientists for that matter) simply take the evolution theory for truth, while the facts don't really back it up.

    Evidence can be interpreted in many different ways. As as simple example: after a car accident there are two tire marks. These can either be from the car braking, or the car accelerating. Now, you can investigate further, and find out that it was in fact caused by wheel-spin from acceleration. But a lot of people would jump to early conclusions based on selective perception.

    In the end then, it's still a theory. And while it's claimed to be backed up by evidence, I think it's too early to jump to hasty conclusions. People should be free to believe or not to believe in it, without everyone running in circles.

  • Evolution remains theory only.

    In our efforts to understand the world & our place in it, to explain who we are & how we got here, we take the physical evidence we do find and apply our reason to finding the answer. But accepting theories which have not been proven by using the data we do have, such as the observable mutations within a species, is like reverting to the dark ages, when a select few said, " We can all see the sun revolves around the earth, therefore, the earth is the center of the universe!"
    A theory that cannot be duplicated is just that- a theory. And so many theories abound within that theory! No one is old enough to have seen how the world was formed. No one is old enough to have seen fish cawl out of the ocean on legs either. All the physical evidence we do have is suspect, because it has been corrupted over time, as in a crime scene. The tools we have to measure & record such data has certainly improved, but we can't say we've even found all the evidence!
    Observable data cannot be made to fit a theory that sounds good, so this theory, like all others, has the burden of proof. Gravity is a proven theory. You drop the ball, it will hit the ground. That ball can be any size or color, it could be a rock, but ultimately, it will hit the ground. Everytime. Until we can prove a theory, we should not be accepting it as a fact. Otherwise, when " the world was flat" where would Magellan be? Or Columbus? They would have fallen off the earth! Or how about our place as the center of the universe? It was not so long ago we had our first pictures from the Hubble telescope, and it changed our very perception of how vast is our universe- and how small at the same time.
    Jury's still out people.

  • No, neither has significant proof.

    Because of a lack of proof, neither theory has been proven, which is why we refer to it as the theory of evolution, not the law of evolution. Although it has many good points and it is plausible, it has not been proven to this date. That still needs to be accomplished.

  • Can we prove it scientifically that evolution is a theory?

    We have no prove that evolution is scientific theory, where is the evidence to support that. Where is the hypothesis? Did we observe the data or you sure that when Darwin died no one else took his place. There is a lot of questions out there and my biggest one is "WHO IS GOING TO ANSWER THEM?"

  • Not scientifically.

    Evolution has a lot of evidence behind it, but in order to PROVE something in the scientific community you have to be able to test and retest the experiment. It is unlikely some scientist or group of scientists is going to take billions of years and have an environment to test evolution. Prove is a big word in science and very few theories no matter how much evidence they might have reach that milestone of having been Proven. That being said evolution has a lot of evidence and is at the moment the pre-eminent biological theory of the world we see around us.

  • Yes and no Mostly no

    It mostly depends on the type of evolution. If you talking about, genetic mutation withing a species (like different color or shape) then yes that area of evolution is proven. But things like common ancestry (we evolved from goo in some swamp millions or billions of years ago) are still only theory. They have some evidence but not enough to be proven.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Tony777 says2015-05-31T09:49:22.797
No. Evolution has most definitely not been proven. What many people on here are claiming is "proof" of evolution is actually nothing more than proof of adaptation, which is as far as I go. Adaptation most certainly happens but that is not evolution is it? Evolution claims the idea that these adaptations actually account for diversification and can thus lead to entirely different species down the generations adaptations and this hAs NEVER been observed, tested, or for that matter, proven.